Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

All Blacks v Ireland part III - July 16 8.05am Ireland time

11516182021

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭brokenangel


    We had a squad going into 2019 with plenty of experience, the problem was the game plan had no evolved enough, the team and management didn't realise this till the England game and Rob Kearney confirmed this in an interview



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,416 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Yeah I agree in general, and I think again a lot of this conversation is discussed in extremes.


    I’m not suggesting a brand new XV every game, but maybe that’s how it comes across sometimes. Both sides are painting the other as ‘no development’ or ‘no winning’. It’s all about balance, and Farrell has walked that difficult tightrope phenomenally well thus far.


    We’re in a great position for 2023, and after Saturday we should feel so excited for what’s to come.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl



    Hugely positive apart from being a big contributor to us not winning the GS anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    The 6nations will be intense this season. We have a great chance! All sides will fancy they're chances.

    I'm looking forward to the Kiwis playing the boks in a couple of weeks. I'm wondering how they'll react to a poor last few matches. The boks will put it to them. That pack is destructive and top notch. Imagine losing a series to Ireland and facing S.A for the next 2 matches. Foster is certainly up against it!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,836 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    The SA v NZ matches will tell us a lot about where we stand. If SA wipe the floor with them then while not taking away from our achievements it will inform us about where NZ currently are.

    Looking at NZ they still have some really good players, maybe not at the 2007-2017 level, but the Barretts, Savea, Jordan, Whitelock and an inform Retallick are all amongst the best players in the world. Would a Joe Schmidt coached NZ make some of the basic errors we saw on Saturday? I think not, but who knows.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yeah, agreed, can't wait for that NZ series in South Africa. They have to dig into their depth a bit, especially in the tight 5.

    Interesting how there are a lot of calls for Cullen Grace to step up, possibly into the 6 shirt. I thought he was good in Super Rugby, and pretty good for the Maori against us, but didn't think he was a world beater by any means either.

    Depth in the tight 5 and a solution at blindside flanker seem to be live issues for them, along with sorting out their midfield.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    Cited nevertheless, which strikes me as entirely reasonable given retallick suffered cerebral commotion and a fractured cheekbone. And you know as well as I that you would have expected the NZ prop to get a red card if beirne or Ryan had gone off with concussion and a fracture.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    It bears mentioning but the effort that Sexton put in to chase Jordan back has to be commended.

    He was never catching him in a million years but he knew that if he just eased off , Jordan would go around under the sticks.

    He kept running flat out to make sure that Jordan had to stay wide and as a result Barrett missed the conversion.

    Those 2 points make the last 15 minutes a different game altogether.

    An 8 point game and NZ take one of those penalties and then it's a 1 score game and the pressure on Ireland is hugely increased.

    Ultimately we held them scoreless from then anyway , but the mindset from both teams becomes quite different when it's one score vs. two.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    We let the pressure get to us in 2019. Players and coaches alike. We took our eye off the ball going into the 6Ns with too much of a focus on the RWC QF. And then when the wheels started to come off we panicked. Players started forcing things and making errors. Coaches started getting involved when they never had done before and just added to the pressure cooker environment.

    One of the most important things Farrell seems to be doing is building confidence while also reducing pressure. And, while it may sound contradictory, then allowing us to deal with the pressure when it does come on all the better because it isn’t pressure on pressure. Spreading the load across the squad, creating a good environment, building a game plan that the lads actually enjoy. So much of that seems to be in direct response to what went wrong in 2019.

    People keep talking about how our game got “figured out”. We never played a complicated game under Joe. Teams not figuring us out was not why we were so good in 2018. We were that good because we executed that game to a degree that other teams couldn’t cope with. Figuring us out was never a problem for opposition sides. Dealing with us was. And once our focus slipped in the 2019 6Ns and our performances dipped that just wasn’t the case any more. And then once the panic set in we just compounded it all.

    If Farrell can get us to a RWC with the confidence and ability to deal with the pressure then that’s a large part of the job done. The other part is a game plan that is a winning one. And we have seen that we can put that together. This series has shown we can deal with the pressure. For me we look to be heading in the right direction. And that’s one that doesn’t focus on one tournament or series at the expense of others. And that’s exactly the right way to do things. After all, losing can become a habit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭brokenangel


    Teams worked out to stop Ireland on the first 3-4 phases and then we would run out of idea's. I am a huge fan of Joe's and he had an excellent plan and to be fair he was going into the last weekend of the 6 nations with a chance of winning it. We also had a few players who's performance dropped off a cliff and didn't really recover for the WC.

    The comments from rob saying they didn't think they had any issues till after the England warm up game told a lot and why I question the IRFU didn't come in and give Joe a hint to swap the style, it's not like he hadn't done it before.

    Farrell now has been involved in two WC's, 2015 and 2019, both as a coach and not the head coach. He should have the experience of what "can go wrong" after those two competitions. But he also was involved with the Lions twice(2013 & 2017) from memory. So knows what went well with those tours

    His record against NZ is also amazing when you think he was part of the England ticket which won all those years ago.

    If anyone has the experience to get this right it should be him, problem is he has the worst draw that Ireland ever had, well I think so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Not sure about this. England gave us a lesson in forward play. We weren't in that one. That was the 1st match of the 6nations. This loss opened the cracks.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Oops



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,824 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    I’m not sure if there was any concussion symptoms or was it solely the fact he fractured his cheekbone that he stayed off.

    I read an analysis criticising the mitigation used, that medium force shouldn’t be allowed as mitigation, only low force. Or maybe Barnes viewed as low force due to not moving forward or sticking his head out, it was more like a wrap tackle.

    So it will be illuminating to hear what the officials say about this.

    Absorbing the impact while standing upright is probably a yellow, whereas moving forward and protruding the head or a shoulder to make an impact worse should be a red in my view.

    I still think there should be consideration given to the carrier targetting a collision, maybe the laws need an addendum, if the carrier does not look to run past the player but chooses instead to run directly head-on into the tackler then that has to be taken into account.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,075 ✭✭✭Christy42


    I also remember a champions cup/heineken cup match with Sexton chasing back with no hope of catching the try scorer. it did end up meaning he was close enough to see that the ball wasn't grounded properly and demand a TMO which showed no try. All I remember from that is that it was Beale who did 90% of the work only for someone else to muck it up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,605 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    A big issue we had in 2019 was persisting with players who were not in form at all, and hoping to play them back into it. Sexton and Murray the obvious examples.

    I hope that Farrell will take form into consideration going thru next season to the WC. If starters from this team aren't playing well, then I hope he will pick guys who are. Genuine competition



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,561 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Provincially and nationally, we seem to be more vulnerable to tight five power than the passing game given that our defence is so well organized. Many of our backs are not pacy by international standards but only Jordan got a chance to really expose that. As noted above, the upcoming SA-NZ games will be watched with great interest to see where they and we stand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,638 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    I'm hoping for bok blitz! They're the Champs and I think they'll be chomping at the bit!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Absolutely. The significance of that chase only became truly apparent when the con was missed. And it was missed barely.

    As they always say, it's the little things.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Good video of John Kirwan, Justin Marshall, Jeff Wilson and familiar Leinster face performing an autopsy with lots of soul searching. Interesting to hear the acknowledgement of the level of Ireland's superiority right now.

    ABs tour to South Africa will be a fascinating watch. If they don't grind out something there they may have to do a root-and-branch job on the team and send a lot of lads to Japan to graze on yen. Even Argentina look in decent shape and will be looking to heap on the misery. This series loss could well have totally screwed up their World Cup cycle.




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,453 ✭✭✭Wegians89


    Haven’t seen it mentioned but a test series win without arguably you’re start wrong hooker and lineout caller, two players in Kelleher and Henderson who would be in the conversation for world class if not just the tier below is huge.

    IF (big if) you can keep that first choice pack and subs fit, can’t see why you’d be afraid of any team come rwc time.


    would like to see Bernie start at 6 and Ryan and henderson In second row against the boks in November



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I'd say if SA don't win both these matches against NZ it's a very bad sign for them. They've been uninspiring of late and I'd fancy all three RC teams to beat them if they were away from home



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    NZ's on and off-field issues are interconnected. The domestic product is weaker - both competitively and financially - without the SA teams. Unless the reformatted SR competition makes a big impact with Asian TV viewers, I can't see any other viable financial support to keep ABs at home.

    On the other hand, as the national side continues to stutter, top players departing for a payday would have proportionally more impact on the All Blacks. And that brand, and all its earning potential, is critically reliant on the dominance of the team on the field.

    It's not outrageous to suggest NZ may need to soon consider an Australia/SA style system of integrating a high-earning elite diaspora with a core of domestic players. But of course that weakens the domestic product even further and we're back to square one.

    If I'm the NZRU I get Robertson in immediately, as distasteful as that may seem, a year out from an RWC. The longer the ABs underperform on the field, the more lasting the damage during this pivotal transition across the broader NZ ecosystem.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,824 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    For minority sport nationally and globally rugby does grab a lot of the print media and I suppose we have had some level of success nationally with it as well as within the club game.

    However there are a few things working against rugby moving forward, none more so than the concussion/injury issues that aren't going away. It will always make it a difficult sport for parents to start their kids in.

    While great work has been happening to grow the game in areas where it hadn't been traditionally strong I do think we need to get to the business end of a WC to glue together that progress and get more kids interested in the sport. Right now I think we are a few key injuries/loss of form of a 38 year old away from getting to the business end of the WC.

    A great series win against NZ no doubt, papers well full of it and rightly so, but NZ will be a different outfit in a year's time..Will we?



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    Ireland was extremely lucky to win the series…..they were lucky the AB were red carded in the second test….they were lucky there was confusion and Ardie couldn’t play for 50 minutes…they were lucky they weren’t red carded for exactly the same head butting offence in the third test….aaahhhh the luck of the Irish.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    There's a contradiction in calling the Ta'avao red 'lucky', and then separately calling the Porter yellow 'lucky'. You can't have it both ways. We were probably lucky Porter only saw yellow, but not lucky in the slightest that Ta'avao was sent off.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    When Sexton went off in the first test it was like Ireland were playing with 14 players and lost badly….. they were rudderless…. Same with us in the second test plus a couple of yellows to boot….you can’t say the red card in the second wasn’t lucky for you when you look at what happened to you in the first test



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭jacothelad




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,949 ✭✭✭SuprSi


    Ironically that post completely contradicts your username. The ABs were lucky Scott Barrett wasn't red carded/cited, that Peyper didn't award a penalty try, that Fainga’anuku wasn't red carded. I believe Porter was fortunate not to get a red card but to say Ireland were lucky to win is doing a massive disservice to the team and the quality of rugby played, and you can be guaranteed the ABs aren't looking at luck being the reason they lost.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    So New Zealand were lucky to win the single test they did, because Ireland's best player was off injured for most of it.

    Roger that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭jacothelad




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    I mean, yeah, the initial post was a bit hysterical. But to be fair, the "luck" element is something I've been reflecting on myself. I don't think many would dispute that NZ win the third test (i.e., the series) if Porter had been red carded. And given current refereeing practice, I think he sees red more often than he doesn't. So we can't really conclude that we were anything but lucky here.

    A lot of the luck going the other way is also somewhat immaterial. NZ were lucky that Leicester F wasn't red carded, or that a penalty try wasn't awarded for the early hit on Ringrose, or that they played a two-minute stretch of that match with a man extra on the field. But all these incidents were in the second test, which we won anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    They were lucky that Sexton went off injured in the first test. Losing him seemed to be directly responsible for our collapse in the second quarter which is why we lost that game. They were lucky that there were 6 occasions that we crossed the line and didn’t ground the ball in the first test. How often does that happen? They were lucky that Barrett didn’t see a card for his hit on POM. They were lucky that they didn’t see a yellow for repeated infringements before the 78th minute in the first test. They were lucky that a bad pass from Sexton was compounded by a poor decision to pass from Ringrose and that was then further compounded by Lowe slipping allowing for the intercept try in the first test.

    Luck played a big part in their first test win. Luck played a big part in our second test win. In close games luck will play a big part. We’ve seen contacts like Porter given as a yellow before so while we got lucky that it wasn’t a red you could also say NZ got lucky if it had been a red. As I said before, if you look at how that luck balanced out over the course of the series it was probably even enough.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    This.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭Shehal


    I still find it amusing that people exaggerate the influence of the red card in the 2nd test and conveniently forget the fact that NZL were totally on the ropes even before the red card...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Sexton's injury is really the only thing here I'd consider both lucky and impactful on a result.

    I'd consider our failed executions, missed tackles, poor decisions etc to be something we can control and improve upon. I.e., things we have agency over and less to do with our opposition's luck. Unless you want to extend all victories and defeats to the "luck" of being better or worse than your opposition!

    Also, Barrett would have been carded quite late in the first test, if I recall correctly. I.e., long after the game was lost.

    When I think about "luck" impacting things, I am thinking specifically about situations that were largely external to either team's agency and directly impacted one of the three results. So for me, it's Sexton's injury in test 1 and Porter's card in test 3. Can't think of any others for now...



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    Ireland played the better rugby over all and the first half of the third test was the best 40 minutes in Irish history. For teams to beat NZ they have to be at their very best and they were. They are now calling for Fosters head which is totally unfair and wrong. Even so I would like to see Razor Robertson move into the job now and bring in new blood to the team.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    They are now calling for Fosters head which is totally unfair and wrong. Even so I would like to see Razor Robertson move into the job now and bring in new blood to the team.

    Do you arrive at a fair POV just by contradicting yourself?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    On the Porter card , Barnes at least is very consistent in how he interprets these incidents - There was a similar incident in the Premiership final 6-8 weeks ago as well.

    Rightly or wrongly , the way he views them is that if there is head on head contact it's a card.

    The difference for him between Red and Yellow is where the majority of the momentum is coming from - He felt that Porter was static and "accepted" the contact rather than drove into it so that made it Yellow - Had Porter been moving forward and driving upwards etc. then it would have been Red.

    Barnes came to exactly the same conclusion in the Prem Final as well. Hard to know how Barnes would have view the Ta'Avao card as it was probably 50:50 in terms of momentum , but he might have gone with Yellow there too.

    To be honest , I think the Barnes approach is fairer and more measured than a blanket Red card but the wider argument is less around if Barnes was right and more about the inconsistency between Refs and TMO across different games.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,824 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    The two incidents are different in that one has the tackler moving forward and the other has the tackler standing his ground.

    Further to that the ball carrier was trying to run away from the tackler in one instance and in the other the ball carrier aimed at and ran directly into the tackler.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭RichieRich_89


    I thought yellow for Porter was absolutely the right call from Barnes. Porter didn't try a dominant 'hit'. A high proportion of the force was coming from the ball carrier. It was a bit like that time Danny Cipriani got red-carded because Rory Scannell ran into his shoulder with his head. That call was just flat out wrong, for me. It was a fairly passive action from Cipriani.

    Where Ireland were a bit lucky is with Aki not getting scrutinised for his counter-ruck effort on Tu'ungafasi. As far as I can see the only thing that would make that not be a red is that from the available camera angles it might not be completely clear and obvious where he makes contact. I think Aki can be really good - the NZ commentators were impressed with how he dovetailed with Sexton in attack - but there's always this danger of a red card looming over him.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭TheRona


    There's many differences between the two. Ta'Avao's was clearly accidental, Porter had plenty of time to adjust, making it look much more like a deliberate thing.

    I do find it strange a few comments coming in about the ball carrier running in a straight line into contact somehow contributing to a high tackle. Surely a player trying to avoid contact while a tackler goes in is much more likely to result in a serious incident. With a player running straight, there's no surprises at the point of impact. It's not like Porter didn't have time to prepare, he made a conscious decision to stay high. Not to mention that Retallick is what, 6'8"? Takes some effort to complete a high tackle, even if he is running with his head slightly down.

    It's all academic anyway. Ta'Avao's was a red card, the Citing Commissioner decided that Porter's should have been as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,276 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Let's not overlook the fairly obvious tip tackle on JVF early in the game while he was being cleared out of a ruck. I've seen yellows given for them more often than not but it wasn't brought to Barnes attention by the TMO. I also think Savea was blessed not to get a yellow for picking that ball up from a ruck on his own 2 metre line. Whether he thought it was out or not is immaterial and I've seen Barnes give cards for those types of infringements before. Especially in those types of situations.

    Overall, I thought Barnes had a very good game and let both teams get on with their business. He certainly wasn't the winning or losing of that game for either team.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭TheRona


    Depends whether you think a red card to Porter would have been the winning or losing of the game.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,276 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,530 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    The decision hasn't been given yet, has it?

    There's not a whole lot of time to adjust, in fairness. Porter runs laterally behind Furlong and the collision occurs as soon as he reaches Retallick's channel. I don't think Brodie can see Porter at all before the impact.


    What are coaches supposed to say to players in cases like this and the Ta'avao/Ringrose incident ? You basically have to let the ball runner run past you and take the legs from behind, right? Does anyone think they could make either of those tackles correctly and safely from head-on?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,897 ✭✭✭TheRona


    No, but a player can only be cited if the Citing Commissioner believes that the offence warranted a red card.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Indeed and that again is a question of interpretation.

    It's the inconsistency of that interpretation that is the problem here.

    As I said above , I think the way Barnes consistently interprets it is probably the most fair , but not everyone does that and not everyone is consistent in their decision making across different games.

    It's not the decision , it's the consistency that's the issue.

    That applies across the board for every decision a ref makes in a game - All that can be asked for from players and coaches is consistency - If you have that you can adjust accordingly and move on , but if each time you play you are wondering where the offside line will be or what constitutes off your feet at a ruck etc. it's impossible to play.

    And that's before we get anywhere near Red Card/Yellow card type stuff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,276 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,330 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    The problem is that people are drawing false equivalence between the Ta'avao and Porter incidents. Unless we go back to the situation where any contact with the head is a red, they're not comparable.

    TBH, I think the Porter yellow was fair, but Aki could have got (at least) yellow for his headfirst clearout, so I think we did get a decent run of luck in the third test. We got shafted with a couple in the first test, these things usually balance out.



Advertisement